Saying Luis Suarez only deserved a three-game ban undid much of Liverpool's
good early work, says Graham Bean

Heavy price to pay: the consequences of losing Luis Suárez for the first six games of next season could be serious enough for Liverpool: can they risk something even more damagingPhoto: ACTION IMAGES

By Graham Bean, Former FA compliance officer

7:02AM BST 25 Apr 2013

Members of the Football Association’s compliance office will be grinning like Cheshire cats this morning. They realised this was a case in which they needed to be seen to apply swift, decisive action, and deliver a strong message to the game and they have done that.

When taking other factors into account, however, it may well be that criticism comes not in the direction of Luis Suárez and Liverpool but instead towards the FA.

When even the Prime Minister has said Suárez ought be given an exemplary sanction, a 10-game ban does feel like the FA disciplinary panel blowing with the wind.

Many see the eight-game punishment meted out to Suárez for racially abusing Patrice Evra as a sign of weakness from those at the governing body, so it appears the FA wanted to make sure that it got this one right.

I am in favour of the FA’s fast-track disciplinary system, which in this case has seen a ban applied fewer than three days after the incident. But my concern is that there are times when a case is so serious it needs more time for consideration. I think that should have happened this time.

The FA’s rules meant Suárez was guaranteed a minimum three-match suspension, so that would have given the FA three weeks to decide how many more matches should be added. There was no need to rush this case through while emotions were still running high while Suárez should have been given more time to prepare a mitigation case.

But Liverpool must themselves take some of the blame for the length of the suspension. After grabbing the moral high ground earlier in the week by dealing with the matter swiftly and strongly, I believe that they made a fatal mistake when challenging the assertion from the FA that the punishment should be more than three matches.

It was clear to anyone with any knowledge of the disciplinary process that the action of biting another player in the manner in which he did was worthy of more than the standard penalty.

By challenging that I think that between them Suárez and Liverpool brought about the mammoth ban. If Suárez had simply accepted the charge it is highly likely he would have received credit for doing so and at the same time saved himself a couple of games.

Liverpool’s next dilemma is whether or not to appeal against the decision. My advice would be take it on the chin and move on.

Graham Bean was the Football Association’s compliance officer between 1999 and 2003. He now represents leading clubs and players in disciplinary matters through his Football Factors advisory company.